The new Madeleine McCann Re-Investigation: Jim Gamble doesn't ...

Who, for example, decided to bring in (and presumably pay for) the
Centre for Crisis Psychology
Who decided to bring in the men from Control Risks Group - and who
agreed to pay their bills
Who, for that matter, approved of a team of profilers from CEOP to be
flown over to help the Portuguese police
And, crucially in this instance, who exactly were the ‘people that Kate
and Gerry brought in’ who spoke to Jane Tanner earlier on that vital date
of Sunday 13 May which ended up with her identifying Murat as the
abductor with such certainty that Mr Amaral’s men swooped on Murat
and took him down to the police station the very next day
They could certainly have included men from CEOP. Possibly men from
Control Risk Group as well. Who she talked to and what they talked
about has been carefully and deliberately hidden from us. We can be
reasonably certain of one thing, though, from the comment that the CEOP
profilers had said that Murat fitted the CEOP profile and that they could
be ‘90% certain’ that he was the abductor. No doubt CEOP fully
approved of the decision to declare Mr Murat an ‘arguido’.
The more serious question to be answered, however, is what part did (a)
CEOP (b) Control Risks Group (c) Leicestershire Police or (d) anyone
else have in suggesting or influencing Jane Tanner to pick out Murat as
the abductor That is a matter that should be independently investigated.
It was wholly wrong therefore, as the Home Office has done, to appoint
Jim Gamble of CEOP to conduct a preliminary review of the Madeleine
McCann investigation, when his men were not only part and parcel of
that investigation, but also contributed to a very great degree to one of the
most controversial decisions in the whole case, namely the decision to
declare Murat a suspect. Any review should not have been undertaken by
the head of an organisation which was at the thick of the original
investigation. It should clearly have been carried out by someone
independent.
And let us at the same time consider these points about Tanner’s
identification of Murat:
1) He did not look like the abductor she had described to police ten days
earlier
9